Metro-style Internet Explorer 10 ditches Flash, plugins

Microsoft has announced that Windows 8's Metro-style browser won't include any …

Windows 8 will have two versions of Internet Explorer 10: a conventional browser that lives on the legacy desktop, and a new Metro-style, touch-friendly browser that lives in the Metro world. The second of these, the Metro browser, will not support any plugins. Whether Flash, Silverlight, or some custom business app, sites that need plugins will only be accessible in the non-touch, desktop-based browser.

Should one ever come across a page that needs a plugin, the Metro browser has a button to go to that page within the desktop browser. This yanks you out of the Metro experience and places you on the traditional desktop.

The rationale is a familiar one: plugin-based content shortens battery life, and comes with security, reliability, and privacy problems. Sites that currently depend on the capabilities provided by Flash or Silverlight should switch to HTML5.

Microsoft has been vigorously promoting HTML5 for the last year and a half as the best way of providing rich interactivity on the Web. HTML5 potentially has reach far beyond that of Flash, since it can target both conventional browsers and closed ecosystems (such as iOS) alike. However, until now, Microsoft's messaging has been tempered somewhat: use HTML5 when you can, but if you can't—if you need support for DRM-protected media streaming, for example—then it's reasonable to switch to an alternative, plugin-based technology.

With Windows 8, however, those reasonable decisions to use Flash or Silverlight will now be heavily penalized. Technically, there's nothing wrong with the desktop browser, of course; the rendering engine and performance will be identical between both Metro and desktop. But the experience will be substantially inferior. The desktop browser isn't designed for touch inputs, meaning that users will either have to switch to a mouse and keyboard, or fumble around with an interface that wasn't built for fingers. The switch to the desktop browser also appears to discard things like back button history and current page state.

This puts the Metro browser in a peculiar position. Microsoft has positioned tablets as merely a different kind of PC. That, the company argues, affords capabilities and features not possible on iPad-style devices. But PCs have browser plugins—more generally, they have the ability to use the right technology for the job. If Metro doesn't include that flexibility, that could be seen as diminishing the "PCness" of the platform.

HTML5 still isn't a total replacement for plugin technologies, either. The gap is certainly narrowing: Web Sockets, Web Workers, built-in support for webcams and microphones, and more, are all coming to HTML5 browsers (or are available already), and these features will obviate the need for plugins for many applications. But certain corners are likely to remain; DRM-protected video, for example, might forever be impossible in HTML5, and while many people find DRM distasteful, many broadcasters feel they have little choice but to use it.

The solution to this conundrum on the iOS platform has been the app: companies like Netflix and the BBC have applications to watch video on these devices. The result is that in the desire to push an open, plugin-free Web, companies are being forced to migrate away from the Web entirely. Silverlight developers, at least, will have an easy migration path available to them: the new Metro development environment, used for producing native Metro applications, borrows heavily from Silverlight, and making the switch from an in-browser plugin-based application to a standalone Metro application should be relatively easier. Flash developers will have to wait to see what tools Adobe delivers.

HTML5 design and developer tools also remain weak, though this situation is improving with the creation of products like Adobe Edge.

With Microsoft's promotion of HTML5, and the precedent set by iOS, the decision to get rid of plugins in the Metro browser is perhaps unsurprising. But it's not clear that this will truly help Windows 8; the awkward user experience penalizes users who, for no fault of their own, need to use plugins, and detracts from Windows 8's PC claims. A switch to a more HTML5-powered Web will happen regardless—does Microsoft really need to force the issue like this?

My iOS loving borther was quick to point this out to me when it broke.

I think it is a bit of an odd decision based on their tablet approach. The slogan goes from "A tablet is a PC" to "A tablet is a PC, except on the web." I get the various reasons they may have as far as flash is concerned, but all plug-ins? The consistency is good I suppose. So much for extending the borwser though. It may help push more browsers to the market to choose from. I wonder how easy it is to change the default browser in Win 8 and what kind of side effects there might be.

The big question I have from it relates to the "Window mode" or whatever they call it. Is it going to be available on ARM, or only on x86?

Has this been confirmed from Microsoft? Since this is a developers build, an updated browser may support plugins in the future. Also, will this hold for all version of Windows 8 or just the ARM based version?

Unless there is official confirmation that MS is going to ditch plugins, I think it is too early to report on this. If they do plan to make PCs like an iOS tablet, MS may sabotage all the goodwill generated by a good Windows 8 presentation.

Edit: For some reason, the link the the MS blog didn't appear on my iPhone web app. This is a bold move by MS that will potentially gimp IE vs Firefox/Chrome. Will they restrict the use of plugins in other browsers when in Metro mode?

The interesting part of the no-plugin model: what about Silverlight? Will that become an exception?

For me and many people I know, the only reason that Silverlight exists on our computers is to watch Netflix streaming. It's the closest thing to a killer app that Silverlight has.

Netflix will not be going away from Win8. I assume there will be a dedicated Netflix app to do that job on a Win8 tablet. If that's true, the decision on Microsoft's part to push a major SL user in the direction of standalone applications and away (however slightly) from SL is surprising, to say the least.

Possibly Silverlight is built into the application stack of every Win8 distribution; maybe external pressures to get SL on Win8 is a non-issue. For other platforms, though, it weakens SL's position when the platform's owner takes steps to drive its most visible user away.

Netflix will have their own dedicated app like they have on iPad and Android. There is no need to have it confined to an in-browser experience when Microsoft will have an "App Store". I'd argue the in-app experience will be better than in-browser.

Again, this is great for standards. Adobe realizes this and its why they have their server-side flash technology and their new software designed to design HTML/CSS/JS in a flash-style environment.

Flash and Silverlight for the web are rarely (never?) touch optimized anyway, so dropping into a non-touch OS makes as much sense as anything.

This gives web developers a full year (give or take) where the handwriting is on the wall, so there ought to be plenty of time for anyone who cares to adapt -- especially since anyone who targets the iPad should already be adapting anyway.

This seems like a perfectly sensible move -- as far as I can tell, the main disadvantage is the talking points it gives Apple fetishists fanboys. ;-)

I honestly don't think this is a big deal. My Android phone redirects me to other applications all the time, and it's pretty seamless. Even if the "desktop" browser isn't designed for tablets, somehow I doubt you'd have to fumble for a keyboard and mouse to input text. More than likely you'd type on a screen keyboard as we've grown so accustomed to doing already. No one will complain about this by a few months after Windows 8 is released if they make the transition between browsers is fast and seamless enough, much like when the iPhone came out and it didn't support flash. If it saves battery life, all the better.

On a side-note, I think Metro is a terrible name for the browser. For many people of my generation (currently college-aged), I think it'll evoke more the "metrosexual" fad we had to endure in high school more than a transit system, especially with the color scheme of the screenshots I've seen for Windows 8. But, again, more than likely people will get used to it and the jokes and sideways glances/smirks will fade within a bit after its release. After all, we got used to the name "Wii."

Man I hope when Win 8 comes out it will include the possibility to completely hide the Metro interface and boot to a Win 7 style desktop with proper start menu. I downloaded the developer preview and ran it on a desktop. I found using the Metro U.I. on the desktop with a mouse is a horrible experience. And now this dual browser business. It seems to me that in a rush to "reimagine" themselves and catch a slice of the growing tablet market, Microsoft are making the same mistake as before, only the other way round. This time they are producing an OS optimised for touch screen use, and hoping it will work well on the desktop. I think Apple's approach is much better. They understand that desktops and mobile touch screen devices are two different beasts, and each require an OS tailored to the way they are used.

Considering Metro Apps will most likely be coming in over App Store, which has restrictions (similar to phone), it could be the restrictions will block Flash.

MS seems to be trying to be like Apple but they don't realize that they a) are not seen as cool so even if they do the same things that Apple does, they get a different reaction and b) they're two years late, so doing the same things (touch only, app store, no plugins) two years later amazes noone but only annoys the still faithful enterprise core market.It's like a bad comedy. By emphasizing only the touch stuff and relegating the normal desktop apps to a ghetto, MS manages to turn its main advantage (software library) on its head and appear like the platform with no apps. That's quite an achievement.

Sent from my iPad dressed in a black turtleneck while sitting in the Apple Store

Just kidding. I'm not actually writing that from my iPad nor am I in an Apple Store nor am I wearing a black turtleneck. I just wanted to be silly.

In fairness, I have been using this computer for about two weeks for work and have gone during that time without Flash in the browser. I finally succumbed when I wanted Google Voice (since I don't have a phone yet, I'm waiting for the iPhone 5).

Damn it, I probably sound much more like an Apple fanboy than I want to.

Netflix will have their own dedicated app like they have on iPad and Android.

I wish this were the case for OS X. Instead I have to maintain the Silverlight plugin (which appears to have a completely opaque update-checking process) and contradictory settings. I'd much rather have a self-contained Netflix app that doesn't require admin privileges and get rid of Silverlight altogether on the Mac.

(I've heard that SL is decent in Windows, and it damned well better be!, but for the Mac it's pretty much a Netflix-only add-on.)

I think worrying about the jarring nature of switching context is really applying the 2011 world to a late 2012-early 2013 OS. A year+ from now, the issues with HTML5 vs. Flash are going to be diminished and this announcement will help iDevice sales do it.

Man I hope when Win 8 comes out it will include the possibility to completely hide the Metro interface and boot to a Win 7 style desktop with proper start menu. I downloaded the developer preview and ran it on a desktop. I found using the Metro U.I. on the desktop with a mouse is a horrible experience. And now this dual browser business. It seems to me that in a rush to "reimagine" themselves and catch a slice of the growing tablet market, Microsoft are making the same mistake as before, only the other way round. This time they are producing an OS optimised for touch screen use, and hoping it will work well on the desktop. I think Apple's approach is much better. They understand that desktops and mobile touch screen devices are two different beasts, and each require an OS tailored to the way they are used.

DISCLAIMER: I am a Microsoft employee (Bing)DISCLAIMER 2: I own an iPad (think it's a great product) and a MacBook Air (the best PC laptop) and a very fancy desktop PC rolled by Puget Systems folks with a 30" Dell monitor on it. I use a diverse array of stuff, is what I'm saying.

I installed the Win8 beta on the fancy desktop PC mentioned above. It has a mouse (well, trackman marble) and a keyboard. I agree that the *immediate* experience of metro+win8 is confusing coming from the traditional desktop metaphor. It took me about 30-45m of poking around to figure out how to do various things "the new way" but to be honest there's a lot of stuff I love.

I love the new start screen. I was never a start menu fan. The new screen is "a dedicated app" for launching other apps. I like that. I want a lot of my desktop apps to become metro apps quickly, as well, because I really love the fullscreen experience. I'm actively working on some apps to migrate myself because hey, why not. I am REALLY enthusiastic about WinRT. No more win32? Yes please! Burn it to the ground!

I think Win8 really needs a quick "intro" when you first use it with mouse+kbd to show you how to use them effectively in the new world it creates, but I do think they thought hard about using mouse+kbd in the touch-capable parts of the OS and there are some great ideas there. I also understand why such an intro would not exist in the developer preview (it's not even a beta yet!)

So what I want to understand is what parts do you feel actually don't work right for keyboard+mouse users? Is it unfamiliarity or are there actual things that are broken? I agree that the transition is.. pretty massive from Win7 to Win8 but I haven't yet settled on it being bad. In fact some of the mouse gestures (hit the leftmost side of the screen for last app) are really great and things I already miss on my work machine (win7).

But the experience will be ubstantially inferior. The desktop browser isn't designed for touch inputs, meaning that users will either have to switch to a mouse and keyboard, or fumble around with an interface that wasn't built for fingers.

How bad is the desktop browser regarding touch? I wish there was a screenshot in the article. As I remember, the back button is larger than previous IE versions, and the interface altogether is cleaner and more touch-friendly than in the past. Can somebody comment on this? Also, don't forget the fact that the virtual keyboard will still be that of Windows 8, and not the bad screen keyboard of Windows 7.

All in all, I think Microsoft took this into consideration, and made the Desktop version of IE more touch-friendly, even if not touch-oriented.

Considering Metro Apps will most likely be coming in over App Store, which has restrictions (similar to phone), it could be the restrictions will block Flash.

Yes, that's logical. This really seems a schrizophenic OS. We Microsoft want to make the tablet OS (competitor of IOS and Desktop OS competitor of MacOX) the same OS. You'll have 2 apps, one for Metro and non-Metro. But the Metro is several limited compared to non-Desktop apps. The idea of having one single OS but having two apps schema, and one is restricted compared to the other is akward to me. Steven said you might never leave the Metro experience. Right but you cant watch Flash. But its the same OS, Windows 8 right? I am scratching my head trying to figure it out the logic of it.

Altough the worst of it is the start button on Desktop UI. It will lead you to Metro just to search for apps/files. It's the most horrible experience on mouse/keyboard and time wasted.

Windows 8 will be the start of take away the power of the user Windows always gave us.

I think if i buy tablet/laptop converter Windows 8 i will manage to disable the Metro via registry hack, while using on laptop mode, and then use a VMWare of Android ICE-Cream to use the touch experience without having any of the limitations like watching a Flash website.

BTW I love MS products. I even have wp7. I think that Metro Windows 8 is a great tablet experience. But the IE plug-in free, and the use of Metro with keyboard and mouse are to my experience two poorly design ideas...

That means they will have the Flash runtime working inside of Windows 8 Metro and so any other browser could support Flash as long as Adobe makes the Flash runtime available for other programs to use.

Interesting thing about IE10 on Windows 8 Metro, when you try to use plugins you apparently get the following message: "Windows Web Applications supports a limited set of ActiveX controls." So it looks like ActiveX is alive and well inside of the Metro version of IE10, it's just turns off the majority of them.

I think this is exactly what MS needs to do. Despite the geeks everywhere that hate on Apple for forcing the issue on their phones and tablets, it provides a better user experience in the long run in the form of performance and battery life.

Apple did all the hard work. They ditched flash when flash was still awesome. Everyone whined, and those that backed up their whining got a different phone that could play flash, except that they couldn't. It took a couple generations for a phone to be able to play flash competently, but by then it was too late.

MS doesn't even have that problem. iOS doesn't use flash, so if they ban the use of it on their new OS, what are people going to do? Buy a product that does? It doesn't exist! This is a decision that is a thousand times easier than the one Apple had to make. Microsoft has been getting its ass handed to it precisely because it clings to legacy users. Apple (and Google) have shown that you are more successful dragging your users kicking and screaming into the future.

MS is actually in a good position right now. They are filling a market that Apple hasn't beaten them to: Power tablet users, people that don't want a computer AND and tablet, they want a device that does both. They have to absolutely get it right this time around, and everything that we've seen says that the right way to do it (in a business sense), is Apple's way.

Considering Metro Apps will most likely be coming in over App Store, which has restrictions (similar to phone), it could be the restrictions will block Flash.

MS seems to be trying to be like Apple but they don't realize that they a) are not seen as cool so even if they do the same things that Apple does, they get a different reaction and b) they're two years late, so doing the same things (touch only, app store, no plugins) two years later amazes noone but only annoys the still faithful enterprise core market.It's like a bad comedy. By emphasizing only the touch stuff and relegating the normal desktop apps to a ghetto, MS manages to turn its main advantage (software library) on its head and appear like the platform with no apps. That's quite an achievement.

The plugins market for IE has always been much smaller than FF/Chrome. Metro is basically step 1 in jettisoning the legacy library, so I don't have a problem with the move.

There's some things that are getting lost in all this reporting. For example there will be no modal windows, or even overlapping windows in Metro. Multi-tasking is limited to that left column Snap thing and switching windows (and I assume multi-monitor). Metro is a gigantic overhaul. Think different.

Should one ever come across a page that needs a plugin, the Metro browser has a button to go to that page within the desktop browser. This yanks you out of the Metro experience and places you on the traditional desktop.

This, I feel, is a good thing. However, the move to "everybody write native apps!" is going to be the new IE6.

This isn't really something I'd view as a change for MS. They were always keen on people writing native Windows apps that only ran on Windows. They've been dumping resources into making developers like the experience of developing for Windows. It's something that's been going on for years. They wanted web app developers turning out apps that ran exclusively on Windows/IIS Webservers, backed by SQL Server databases (also on Windows servers). There's really not a significant difference with their native Metro apps going forward, even if they're being pushed through the Windows Application Store.

IE6 flaunted established web standards. Everything from HTML/CSS rendering to Javascript DOM interaction is a bit different on IE6 from how it's supposed to be (therefore different from how everyone else does it). It's the sort of thing that pisses off developers and counteracts the goodwill that MS puts a lot of effort into building with them. I think this time around it looks a lot different. Native WinMet apps are not the new IE6. They might be better, they might be worse, but they're definitely a very different scenario.

I bet the real reason that plug-ins were axed is because of how windows 8 treats legacy applications. The moment a legacy program runs, you are back at the legacy desktop. Who knows what mode or helper programs a plugin uses that will pull the user out of the metro interface and back to the legacy desktop.

Apple did all the hard work. They ditched flash when flash was still awesome. Everyone whined, and those that backed up their whining got a different phone that could play flash, except that they couldn't. It took a couple generations for a phone to be able to play flash competently, but by then it was too late.

MS doesn't even have that problem. iOS doesn't use flash, so if they ban the use of it on their new OS, what are people going to do? Buy a product that does? It doesn't exist!

Huh? I believe there are plenty of Android phones that support Flash. What do you mean, exactly?

MS seems to be trying to be like Apple but they don't realize that they a) are not seen as cool so even if they do the same things that Apple does, they get a different reaction and b) they're two years late, so doing the same things (touch only, app store, no plugins) two years later amazes noone but only annoys the still faithful enterprise core market.It's like a bad comedy. By emphasizing only the touch stuff and relegating the normal desktop apps to a ghetto, MS manages to turn its main advantage (software library) on its head and appear like the platform with no apps. That's quite an achievement.

a) I suspect they're trying hard. They want to still be everyone's faithful home computer. I think they're leveraging Xbox popularity to try to bring it to the younger crowd.

b) You're right, but people would have been up-in-arms if MS had tried this stuff before someone else made it common.

But I don't think people are going generally make the mistake of thinking they have no apps. You tend to remember when the apps you already like using will work on the platform in question. Besides, Microsoft is very experienced attracting developers, in fact just a few weeks ago a MSFT rep was offering a bunch of free dev stuff to any WebOS developers that wanted to come over to WP7.